Nash Met Taxi - Anyone get the story?

[lovesolderplymouths]

Since this thread has taken a direction of "what does or doesn't belong in this Professional Class", let me ask why limosines (especially those w/ divider winders) are not considered for this class? Most would have been driven by a paid driver as hearses, ambulances, taxis, etc. Many were completed by an outside coachbuilder. To me this puts them in the same vein as hearses and such. The Professional Car Society includes them. I remember the Fall Meet of 2011 included a 1968 Caddy Limo in 27-H, hardly your average production vehicle.

Personally, I don't see the real connection between funeral vehicles and and taxi/police vehicles. Better mix would be funeral/limo in one group and municipal vehicles (taxi, police, ambulance) as another group.

[West Peterson]

I think your question does not have a straight answer. Until relatively recently, the same limousines were used for professional and private use, so yes, they were production. Today, stretched limousines are strictly professional and an argument -- sorry, discussion -- could be made that they belong in the professional car class. However, they are production cars, and if restored to factory specifications then I can see why they would fit in whatever other class in which they'd be eligible.
All this to say, there are gray areas. What in life doesn't have gray areas?

[DAVE A]

Ron;
Thanks for taking the high road and keeping the discussion on a nice level. I too wish to keep it as a discussion. As far as being "in" on the development of the class, I thought we all were!!! I seem to remember the announcement of the consideration of the class and a solicitation for comments. Yes, I did send my comments to the VP of class judging at the time I heard about the class. No, I don't think any of my comments were directly adopted. Yes, I do think they looked at them.
I understand your point about many small cars getting awards under the old class system and I agree they did. Let me give a personal example. My 50 Farm O Road was a very crudely made vehicle. Even if it was done perfectly as it came from the factory, it would not be at a similar level as a beautifully restored Victoria . Now how could any judge no matter how skilled award my FOR, even if it was perfect, a first, and not do the same for the Ford even if it was not restored to a top level. I know what is supposed to happen, but I don't think a judge could be human and award a second to the less than perfect Vic and give a first to the perfect FOR . I don't think I could and I love my cars. The "small cars class" gives the judges an opportunity to be more fair to those small cars.
This is also my point on judges becoming more knowledgeable. Because of the smaller class, I have had the opportunity and priveledge to be able to spend time with the team leader each time I've shown to show all of my doccumentation to validate my claims of originality.
On letting the owner select what class they want to be in....I'm on the opposite side of that aisle also. I'd rather see the AACA tell everyone what class they have to enter in. I would propose that the owner send in a picture or pictures of his car with a suggestion of what class it belongs in. A committee would then say where the car will go... 1 appeal allowed...decision is final. The car can change class for a subsequent show on submission to the committee, otherwise that is the cars class for life.
Oh, and there a lot of judges that specialize in one class and have the seniority and respect that they judge that class at almost every show they go to!!!

[Stonefish]

Nope…not I, or anyone I know were solicited for input on 04b…you must be one of the lucky ones? Maybe it was a private party?


As far as your example of your FOR vs. a Crown Victoria…sure, I understand what you’re saying…but, if the judges are doing their job as they have been taught to do so…they should be judging the FOR for what it is and how it is being presented, without even looking at any other car in the class…right?


The point that a small car class would cure that issue seems a bit of a stretch…just because a car is “small” does not make it crude and less refined than a car double or triple the size of it, right? I don’t think that is what you’re saying…but it sounds like it. I would think a Met owner would argue that their cars are just as nice and refined as a Crown Victoria…?? Some of the early VW deluxe Bugs and Buses…are simple, but far from crude. At the Spring National in Reading...my 86 Cabriolet was next to a King Midget, you were there…are they on the same level with each other? I drove my car up I78…would you take a King Midget out there? My point…is just refuting your point of the FOR vs a Crown Vic. My Cabriolet should be in with production cars from the same year and that is where I would chose to show it.


Crosley Hot Shot…small car class or sports car class? Is it not known as America’s first post war “sports car”? Should the owner have a choice?
What about the Crosley pick up…small car class or with the trucks?
Could you not lobby to have your FOR in the commercial class? I’m sure you can come up with evidence that they were used on a commercial farm or orchard?


Some long time, AACA small car owners/showers, thought they WERE in class for life…and then poof!

[DAVE A]

Ron;
Not a private party...it was posted that 04-b was being formed right here on the AACA website. That's when I sent in my comments and got involved.
Thanks for getting my point on the Crown Vic. As I said, I know what the judges are "supposed to do". I also know that they are human beings and volunteers at that and succumb to the weaknesses of the flesh. As such, what I am saying about evaluating one car against another does happen to some degree. I admire our judges. I have taken judging schools and although I stopped at that point (I didn't have time to prepare and show cars as well as judge so I had to give something up). They do a great job evaluating our vehicles and trying to be fair in all cases, but they are human!
On the subject of crude...in general the cars on the small car list were not made with the degree of fit and finish that most of the larger makes had. That's my definition of crude...perhaps less refined is a better choice of terms. Even in Volkswagen..up until the 80's were somewhat less than outstanding as compared to other large makes in that area. I mean no offense here, I am just stating that a Bug isn't a Cadillac!! And your Cabriolet...you have to admit is a different level than the King Midget it was next to. As an aside here...I will agree that VW after a certain year to be detrmined belongs with the other cars of the year. They were no longer the cars they were in the 60's. (and I mean that in a good way)
Your questions on "cross class" vehicles are valid, but I don't think it takes away from the validity of the 04-b class either. Should owners be given a choice...I think I already gave my opinion on that. When I was going to enter my FOR in its first show, I wrote to the VP of class judging and asked for his opinion as to what class to put it in. If I remember right, there were 3 possibilities that I detailed at the time. He gave me his opinion as to where it belonged and that's where I put it. I've had judges ask me since then if maybe it didn't belong somewhere else and that is the answer I gave them!!! This is a volunteer organization and we vote to put people on the board and as officers. We, as members vote to give them a job and I say we should let them do it. Ask questions, sure!!! volunteer to help and guide them, definately!! Express our opinions ALWAYS.

[Stonefish]

Totally must have missed the notice and the chance to chime in...anyone else see this or contribute?

"in general the cars on the small car list were not made with the degree of fit and finish that most of the larger makes had."....really? I've seen an ad and video that a Bug can float...could a Caddy?

My comments about the Cabriolet vs King Midget was exactly my point...I agree...it is the same thing as the FOR vs Crown Victoria. It shows that no matter what you are lumping together, you're going to have some strange match-ups that don't make sense...so why start a new class? Don't they say; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?".

[stock_steve]

Totally must have missed the notice and the chance to chime in...anyone else see this or contribute?

"in general the cars on the small car list were not made with the degree of fit and finish that most of the larger makes had."....really? I've seen an ad and video that a Bug can float...could a Caddy?

My comments about the Cabriolet vs King Midget was exactly my point...I agree...it is the same thing as the FOR vs Crown Victoria. It shows that no matter what you are lumping together, you're going to have some strange match-ups that don't make sense...so why start a new class? Don't they say; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?".

I don't recall ever being solicited for my opinion about whether or not my '54 VW should continue in 27A, where it has always been shown (earning, along the way, First Junior, Senior, and Grand National), or get moved to class 04B. If I had been asked I would have said NO WAY. I consider my car just as legitimate as any other '54 production car that was on the road at the time. I always enjoyed showing my car in AACA National Meets with its legitimate peers. I think class 04b should be abolished immediately.

[Jim Bollman]

I do like having the small cars together because I can find them easier but, I have to disagree with my president. I think owners should have a choice, if their car fits in more than one class. New York state recognizes my FOR as a commercial vehicle so why shouldn't AACA. Did have to pay for a heavier license unless I wanted to bring in a weigh slip since their computer locked out commercial vehicles under 2000 lbs.